Messages

Long ago in a galaxy far, far away I made a game. Apparently someone (SedrynTyros) is looking for it. It can be found here...

http://www.cs.adelaide.edu.au/~a1069230/grok.zip

RabbitWithFangs.

Josh Homme.
Kyuss AND Queens of the Stoneage. I mean how much influence can one guy have?

Happy Birthday.

I think he just conceded.

Jean Jacques Russeau. Written in 1762, 'The Social Contract'. Some respect to history, please.

Firstly, His name is Rousseau not Russeau. Secondly, The social contract is Hobbes' idea. You'll find it in chapters 13-15 of Leviathan published in 1651. So, Some respect for history please

It is not a matter of believing in it. You're experiencing it. Most western goverments abide by the 'concept' of the social contract, thus the loose, ambigious current meaning of a socialistic goverment. Go check your country's constitution, if you will, and then make an effort to at least hide your ignorance, please.

The fact that government has been informed by the concept of the social contract does not mean it is true. If you wish to rely on it as the foundation of your debate, you need to prove it true.

The uniqueness of my argument has to bearing to it's validity. Void.

Firstly, your sentence makes no sense. Secondly, You are arguing using inductive, and thus necessarily invalid reasoning. By logical definition, your argument cannot be valid.

No, it can't. You're undermining your effort with this statement in such an essential way, I find it somewhat humourous. Would you say something good came out of the Aryan ethic cleansing? Did killing 10 million jews and assorted, help towards decreasing overpopulation, maybe, to make a hyperbolized statement?

No, I don't think it has any bearing on overpopulation. However, If the effects of the Holocaust and subsequent education programs serve to stop similar events in the future, then I think some good at least has come of a bad situation. Hence the line "every cloud has a silver lining".

The rest of your post is of no consequence.

The fact you haven't addressed the topic of the debate is of "no consequence"?

RWF - I was just razzin' ya bro!  I knew what you meant

Well, you had me...

And you, have clearly failed to notice my previous posts. Well simple terms bad effect, people lose money by giving it to donations. Unless you yourself can tell me a reason why it's bad i would suggest you look more closely at ours.

You yourself admitted that the scenario you have drawn is unlikely. Not only have you admitted this however, you haven't noticed the difference between Charity TV and Government Aid. There has been no Charity TV for Korea. And if you are going to kill the North Koreans, it has nothing to do with any charity they might have previously received, and everything to do with the fact you elected cowboys as leaders.
On a more direct note however, people don't lose money by giving to charity as you claim. They are essentially purchasing a service. Instead of a massage, or a manicure however, they pay for a child to eat. They give money and get something in return, the knowledge that they have helped someone. I don't think that by helping someone and gaining a strong sense of wellbeing you have really lost anything.

Helm has argued well, however he has not argued on topic. The topic of debate is that TV Charity has a contra-positive
effect. Essentially, this means it has a bad effect. Helm hasn't argued this at all though. He has argued that it is a symptom of a breakdown in the socio-economic structure of nations. He hasn't shown that it has any negative effects though. He argues that Charity TV is merely a symptom of private economic ambition(although I fail to see why the ambitious would participate in Charity tv). Even if Helm shows that charity tv is a direct result of the breakdown of the social contract(A flawed conception of the duties between man and state in anycase), he has not shown that Charity Tv has caused any negative effect whatsoever.

The byproducts of a negative procedure such as the breach of the social contract cannot stand to be anything but negative themselves. The ends do not justify the means. Moot.

Again, Helm hasn't argument is not on topic. His model for this debate is that A) Hobbe's Social Contract Theory is true, B) The Social Contract has been broken and C) Charity TV stems from this breach and must therefore be bad.
Helm has not offered any argument as to why anyone should believe in the concept of a social contract. He has offered some argument as to why, if true, the social contract has been broken. However these arguments are not unique to social contract theory. None of the four major current ethical movements would claim that the current state of the world is ideal.  
More importantly, Helm has not argued in any way that Charity TV has a contra-positive effect. He has not shown that it directly causes negative social effects in itself, and that is what this debate is all about. Helm seems to address this is by making a blanket statement that any effect of a breach of the social contract (Which he hasn't given any evidence for) cannot have any positive effects. This position is ridiculous at best. Some good can come from anything. Not only is it far fetched however, he hasn't made any argument for why it is the case, simply an assertion. To re-iterate, helm has not offered any argument that Charity TV has direct, negative consequences. He has attempted to turn this debate into a showcase for Social Contract Theory, which is not it's topic. He admits that Charity does have some positive effects when he says "For all the short-term good TV charity, or any other charity might produce". He fails to show that Charity TV has any direct negative effects.

In this light, TV charity, or any other kind of charity is a sign that things have gone very wrong somewhere. It is a sign that private economic ambition is not only allowed, which is well and good, but also an integral part of the govermental structure, and at times substitutes a number of obligations the latter has towards the citizen.

Helm has argued well, however he has not argued on topic. The topic of debate is that TV Charity has a contra-positive effect. Essentially, this means it has a bad effect. Helm hasn't argued this at all though. He has argued that it is a symptom of a breakdown in the socio-economic structure of nations. He hasn't shown that it has any negative effects though. He argues that Charity TV is merely a symptom of private economic ambition(although I fail to see why the ambitious would participate in Charity tv).  Even if Helm shows that charity tv is a direct result of the breakdown of the social contract(A flawed conception of the duties between man and state in anycase), he has not shown that Charity Tv has caused any negative effect whatsoever.

But great game man!  I love the original concept!  It's so ... existential I think is the word I'm looking for.

Yes. If you don't actually understand what existential means then you're not likely to understand the point of the game. You know when grown ups are talking and you don't understand the words and it's really boring? Well, it's just like that.

On a less smart-ass note, I do like the art of the room and the space planet (not the AGS character).  Very Space Quest-ish (which was always my favorite Adventure Game series).  Are you working on a serious game or was there something else to this that I just didn't get because I'm just not existentially inclined.

They are from the instagame pack. I'm sure you're aware of it, however if you're not then click the call me now link in my signiture. Also, the fact you're even writing would indicate that you are existentially inclined.

So, Mitar claims that 0% of the money goes towards the charity. He also claims that all of the money received goes to the televison producers. What I'd like to know is who among the television producers this money goes to? Mitar hasn't given any evidence to show that either A) The proportion of the money going to each party is what he claims, or B) That any money is given to the producers at all. The producers are giving up their time and resources to raise money for charity. Mitar's claim is completely unbelieveable.

[Charity TV has a contra-productive effect]

Charity TV has a contra-productive effect
* Eye of the tiger swells in the background. Luke prances in shadow boxing imaginary opponents. He then realises rocky was well... stupid.

Yes, Charity TV. The Fuzz has made some excellent points. I will re-iterate his conclusion, since it is indeed a good one. At the end of the day, the poor people have food and the rich people have a warm, fuzzy sense of wellbeing. What else can you ask for? There is no possible way Charity TV could have a contrapositive effect. At it's very heart, it's a win-win situation.

Shoving problems onto society isn't the solution, its an excuse. Everyone has a choice, people who are abusing substances are making that choice. As long as they're not hurting others, I guess that's thier prerogative. But blaming 'society' is shrugging off the choices you have made. Did society force it down your throat?  Realising you made those choices(and thus can also make the choices to reverse them) is one of the steps in most recovery programs.

I'm not claiming that people were forced into crime, but that the current makeup of society is such that it is far more tempting to be a criminal if you're addicted to heroin and don't have somewhere to live than if you were middle class worker with no real problems. If you fix most of the problems that lead to crime, then most of the crime wouldn't happen. Of course, the sufficient cause of crime is the criminal, but the necessary causes are usually based in the society you live in.

According to your own admission, we would never know when the person had truly 'reformed', as it were. Psychology is an inexact science.   So rehab basically just would not work.

That doesn't follow. I agree that rehab won't work perfectly. But neither will anything else. Just because it doesn't work perfectly doesn't mean that it won't work more effectively than the current system. Psychology is inexact, but it stills works.

In Saudi Arabia, they cut your hands off for stealing. Not the first time mind you, but if you do it 2 or 3 times, they will do it. They have a ridiculously low crime rate. You can leave money out in the street and come back after an hour and it will still be there. No one dares lay a hand on it, because they know the consequences if they are caught. This is known as deterrance.  

Ok, so someone gets caught 3 times stealing so their children can eat. Do you think they should lose their hand? What if it turns out someone was wrongly convicted? How do you give their hand back?

If the consequences are trivial, people will keep doing it over and over. I am only referring to the career criminals, not someone who steals something for the first time, because say, he doesn't know its wrong.

Career criminals spend most of their time in gaol. They are usually poor. Do you think someone who is prepared to steal under the current systems has a high level of mental health? The whole idea of rehab is to find out why people are committing crimes and then treat that. This means if someone is stealing because they can't hold down a regular job, you teach them how to. If they were abused and as a result are violent abusers, you teach them to get over the abuse.  

There is also a social stigma associated with crime there, and in most eastern cultures. Gangsters aren't 'cool', they're social parasites. This further serves to deter people from committing these acts.

I seriously doubt anyone rapes, murders or embezzles because it's cool.

IMO jail really isn't enough of a punishment for people who repeatedly commit crimes, because obviously something isn't sinking in. How rehab will make this sink in is still unclear to me. These people just don't care what anyone thinks or how they harm anyone.

Ok, so what do you think is enough of a punishment?

Kant would not tell you not to lie. It has to be applied to the bigger picture IMO. The decision is not if you should lie, the decision is whether universally it would be okay to lie to save a friend from being killed. And it seems perfectly okay to me. Path 2 would lead in everyone's friends being killed, which rationally isn't such a happy ending.

Yes he would, and in fact he has. It's Kant's own example and he says you shouldn't lie. You will find it in his essay "On a supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives". He writes " To be truthful (honest) in all deliberations, therefore, is a sacred and absolutely commanding decree of reason, limited by no expediency". This means that you can never, ever lie.

Debating Kant belongs in another thread, and I really don't care to because its like arguing about religion, a waste of time and energy, everyone thinks they're right. The imperative is not perfect, lots of people have found situations where it doesn't clearly fit. But its good enough for most things. There will never be a perfect moral philosophical theory. We are not perfect beings.

But it's not good enough. And that's the problem. Also, philosophy is not like religion. It's reasonable to make the inference to the best explanation, but if someone can show why your idea is wrong, then you have to accept that the idea is wrong. Religion is based on faith, so you can't disprove it. Philosophy has it's grounding in reason. It can and should be disproven, if it is wrong.

I like mrcolossal's mainly because it's so mind-warping. When he posts I have to constantly remind myself that he is actually a man, as I'm liable to just assume he's a girl. I think purely for that reason, his is the best.

But exactly how would you determine that a person had been 'rehabilitated' and no longer poses a threat to others?

I'm not exactly sure, I believe you'd need psychologists and such. The thing is though, under current penal systems, after you are in gaol for a certain period of time you are automatically deemed to be ready to re-enter society. This is clearly inadequate. Iqu's solution is to just never release anything (for certain violent crimes). I think this is also inadequate. I think a system should be devised such that people are rehabiliated. This would need actual programs designed to prevent people from reoffending as well as appropriate checks to make sure it works. The thing is though, it would need to be particularly efficient at all to do better than out current system. I think we also owe it to these criminals to make the attempt to rehabitate them anyway. It's true that no man is an island, and while not directly, everyone who has taught or interacted with criminals is to some degree responsible for the actions of those criminals. The fact that most criminals are poorly educated, have past pychological problems and are often substance abusers clearly shows that for the most part, they are the people that society has failed.

I'm all for making the punishment fit the crime, but I don't quite understand how we're going to enlighten people who know that they're doing is wrong and still do it.

In the same kind of ways you stop alcoholics with young children from being alcoholics. There are ways to stop negative behaviours and all of them include psychological techniques (including the current system. Deterence is nothing if not psychological). The thing is, I think the current ones are barbaric and they don't seem to work well. I'm really just saying they need to be improved. This includes the shift from antiquidated notions such as punishment being deserved as well.

Incidentally, Kant didn't think reason was enough to make a decision on. That is actually the basis for the imperative.  You can find a reason to do something that goes against the imperative, but the imperative depends on goodwill, which is more essential to it than reason.

The usage of reason in my last post was not reason as in an excuse for doing something. Reason in this instance is reason as in clear, rational thinking. As in the Age of Reason. Basically, Kant and many others (notable Bentham and Mill with utilitarianism) want to establish a clear, explicit and definiate moral code. I'm not if you've just made a simple mistake or if you haven't quite explored moral philosophy in much depth.  If it's the first case, cool, I should have been more clear. If it's the second, I recommend "The Elements of Moral Philosophy" by James Rachels. It's a comprehensive introductory textbook.

The problem with the Imperative is simply that everyone needs to follow it, or it just doesn't work. The concept of rational beings breaks down. Anyway, thats off  topic.

That's not the main problem. The main problem with the catagorical imperitive, like all deontological ethical theories is that the rules clash. Here's one Kant himself explored.  Kant believed that it is A) Always wrong to lie, and b) Always wrong to allow murder. Suppose the situation arises where the only paths of action you have are to either lie or allow murder. The problem is the catagorical imperitive implies that you can take neither of the actions. Say someone you know has done something bad and someone comes around looking for him at your house. Now, your friend is hiding out in your living room and the person looking for him is going to kill him if he finds him. The person knocks on your front door. Do you either 1) lie and say your friend isn't there, so you don't allow murder or, 2) tell him your friend is in the living room and result in the person breaking your door in and kill your friend, so you avoid lying. Kant would say that you should tell the truth about where your friend is. It is then up to the (potential)murderer to follow the catagorical imperitive in turn. Utilitarianism is a better ethical system and although also flawed, doesn't run into these troubles. If you have read up on utilitarianism, it would be wise to do so, as it's the main competition to deontological ethical systems.

My nickname is "Goldmund".

Yes, but why? It makes no sense. Unless mund means mouth and the whole thing is anagolous to silvertongued in English. But, it that is the case it's just creepy, since no-one should call them selves something like that.

"A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake, at the moment."

How many of you would feel this way if it was you who were the victim?

Firstly, I don't think the victim's interests are at stake. To say so is to put a slant on what we're arguing about that isn't there. Neither Iqu nor myself have suggested that nothing should be done about violent criminals. We just differ on what should be done. Once a person has been rehabilited/served their time or whatever is done as a consequence of their actions then there isn't in any danger.

Secondly, and more importantly, What the victim feels should be done shouldn't necessarily hold any weight. What should be done is what is the right thing to do. As someone who is obviously impressed with the catagorical imperitive, you should realise that reason is king in ethical judgements. Feelings are notoriously bad at producing stable predictable results.

In my first year at uni, I used to do overnight shifts at macdonalds. This was friday and saturday night and then I spent the rest of the week at uni effectively jetlagged. Needless to say, I failed like a mofo.

Me thinks you avoid my main questions...

Methinks isn't two words.

1.  How do you rehabilitate someone.
2.  If they are rehab'ed, how do you know they are ready to be released back into society?

1. I don't know. Surely it would involve discussion, lots of chatting, showing them why what they did was wrong, what it made the victim feel like and probably a few psychologists/shrinks. Asking me that is like asking me to make a car engine. I know what it's good for and what the benefits of having one are, but I can't build one.
2. That question answers itself. If they're "rehab'ed" then they're obviously ready to be released.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion violent criminals are sub-human... and my idea of prisons is designed only to let them survive, nothing more.

If you only let someone just survive, then you are as sub-human as they are.

I don't see how a child molestor has the right to a second chance.  

Why not? Would a tax cheat deserve a second chance? Do you have a reason for this or is it just what you intuit?

Also, slightly off topic...

Iqu, you're a sad, sad man. Revenge is for children.

and...

Kant was a dirty deontologist f*ck.

Ooh, naming calling and swearing... maturity, ahoy.

The first means exactly what it says. I think the views involved are sad, pathetic ones. I also think they are the views children are inclined to before they are taught to behavoir in a civilised manner.
The second is a ironic comment designed to demonstrate I don't agree with Kant's catagorical imperative in a short, sharp, shiny and humourous way. The irony, is of course, that calling someone a deontologist fuck is not the correct way to a)refute their argument or b) not offend everyone you're talking to.

I'm happy to continue the argument in the public forum of the... forum.

Would you be happy telling them;
"Sorry, rehab don't work for everyone.  Pisser, huh?".

"One research project looked at 61 previous studies of sexual recidivism using a 4-5 year follow up period. This research on sex offenders found that 13.4% recidivated with a sexual offence, 12.2% recidivated with a non-sexual, violent offence and 36.6% recidivated with any other offence".
Hanson, are.K. (1997). "Predictors of sex offence recidivism." Research Summary. Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.

"A long term follow-up study of child molesters in Canada found that 42% were reconvicted of sexual or violent crime during the 15-30 year follow-up period.

In addition, the long-term follow-up study (15-30 years) of child molesters showed that the average recidivism rate for this group of offenders is actually lower than the average recidivism rate for non-sexual offenders (61% versus 83.2% respectively for any new conviction)".
Hanson, are.K. (1996). "Child molester recidivism." Research Summary. Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.

I didn't claim that rehab works for everyone. I haven't claimed it will work for everyone. All these studies show is that the current regimes of rehabilitation are not completely effective. In fact, they show that some of the people were rehabilitated.

Yes, it would involve being released. And who are you to say that once someone has broken a rule, they are completely untrustworthy and worthless as a human being.

Who are you to say everyone can be rehab'ed.  And again I ask, how do you know and can prove if they are or not?

I'm not saying everyone can be rehabilitated, I'm saying everyone deserves a shot at being rehabilitated. If it's only half effective, then that's still better than the people in that half rotting in gaol. You don't know you have completely rehabilitated people until they are released back into society. But then you don't know if the people in your harsher gaols are going to re-offend or not either.

What harsher penalties?  The prisoners go into solitary after they've committed a crime inside.

Yeah, but the threat of being in solitary still didn't stop them committing that crime.

2. What's humane about rape and kiddie fiddling?

Nothing. If you are inhumane to criminals though, then you aren't much better than they are.